Fair enough, but, although you appear committed to the concept, you don't outline what you think God, or -O-, amounts to.

One of my favorite saying is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that -O- is; I could care less about what -O- is. When you start talking about the whatness of -O-, you reduce -O- to thingness.

I’m not saying the commentary is useless. We humans use symbolic language to get our ideas across and we forget that the symbol is not the symbolized.

My question is this:

Why do we need to know what -O- is with the same precision we know 1+1=2?

Fair enough, but, although you appear committed to the concept, you don't outline what you think God, or -O-, amounts to.

One of my favorite saying is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that -O- is; I could care less about what -O- is. When you start talking about the whatness of -O-, you reduce -O- to thingness.

I’m not saying the commentary is useless. We humans use symbolic language to get our ideas across and we forget that the symbol is not the symbolized.

My question is this:

Why do we need to know what -O- is with the same precision we know 1+1=2?

Because it could be imaginary and you might be deceiving yourself. But it seems harmless enough.

Fair enough, but, although you appear committed to the concept, you don't outline what you think God, or -O-, amounts to.

One of my favorite saying is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that -O- is; I could care less about what -O- is. When you start talking about the whatness of -O-, you reduce -O- to thingness.

I’m not saying the commentary is useless. We humans use symbolic language to get our ideas across and we forget that the symbol is not the symbolized.

My question is this:

Why do we need to know what -O- is with the same precision we know 1+1=2?

Because it could be imaginary and you might be deceiving yourself. But it seems harmless enough.

The images are imaginary. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness comes to mind.

Fair enough, but, although you appear committed to the concept, you don't outline what you think God, or -O-, amounts to.

One of my favorite saying is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that -O- is; I could care less about what -O- is. When you start talking about the whatness of -O-, you reduce -O- to thingness.

I’m not saying the commentary is useless. We humans use symbolic language to get our ideas across and we forget that the symbol is not the symbolized.

My question is this:

Why do we need to know what -O- is with the same precision we know 1+1=2?

Because it could be imaginary and you might be deceiving yourself. But it seems harmless enough.

The images are imaginary. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness comes to mind.

Fair enough, but, although you appear committed to the concept, you don't outline what you think God, or -O-, amounts to.

One of my favorite saying is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that -O- is; I could care less about what -O- is. When you start talking about the whatness of -O-, you reduce -O- to thingness.

I’m not saying the commentary is useless. We humans use symbolic language to get our ideas across and we forget that the symbol is not the symbolized.

My question is this:

Why do we need to know what -O- is with the same precision we know 1+1=2?

Because it could be imaginary and you might be deceiving yourself. But it seems harmless enough.

The images are imaginary. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness comes to mind.

Fair enough, but, although you appear committed to the concept, you don't outline what you think God, or -O-, amounts to.

One of my favorite saying is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that -O- is; I could care less about what -O- is. When you start talking about the whatness of -O-, you reduce -O- to thingness.

I’m not saying the commentary is useless. We humans use symbolic language to get our ideas across and we forget that the symbol is not the symbolized.

My question is this:

Why do we need to know what -O- is with the same precision we know 1+1=2?

If you didn't seek knowledge concerning God you would not be where you are now in your understanding, even if that understanding is that you don't understand much and much of what you do understand is very undeveloped and is very limited ...

Today the one overriding need is unity and harmony among the beloved of the Lord, for they should have among them but one heart and soul and should, so far as in them lieth, unitedly withstand the hostility of all the peoples of the world ... (Baha'i Writings)

If you didn't seek knowledge concerning God you would not be where you are now in your understanding, even if that understanding is that you don't understand much and much of what you do understand is very undeveloped and is very limited ...

My knowledge of -O- is limited to what -O- is like, I know nothing about what -O- is.